Karzai wants US to protect Afghanistan from Pakistan

* NYT reports Afghan president also wants US to take direct military action against Taliban havens on Pakistani soil

KABUL: Afghan President Hamid Karzai wants a mutual security pact that would compel the United States to protect Afghanistan against Pakistan, and, possibly, even take direct military action against Taliban havens on Pakistani soil, the New York Times quoted Afghan sources as saying.

According to the newspaper, it was not until after the meeting of top security officials had ended â€“ as Karzai stood in a corridor with a handful of advisers â€“ that his frustration with the United States boiled over. Washingtonâ€™s attempt to open peace talks with the Taliban in Qatar, he fumed, was â€œin reality an attempt to cut him out and make an American deal with the Talibanâ€, according to one of the officials who saw the outburst.

The Talibanâ€™s sudden willingness to talk in June looked like a potential coup for American diplomacy. The result has been anything but â€” and not just because the Taliban have done more grandstanding than negotiating since opening their Qatar office. Karzai quickly called off Afghan participation in the talks. And now, two weeks later, persuading him to restore his delegation would most likely take more than the United States would be willing to deliver, according to Afghans familiar with his thinking.

He wants a firm commitment on the number of American troops that would stay in Afghanistan past next year, and a lead role in peace efforts, the Afghans said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss diplomatic matters.

All of that is rooted in one of Karzaiâ€™s core beliefs, according to those who know him: that the central challenge facing his government is not the Taliban insurgency, but rather in bringing the United States around to his way of thinking.

â€œAssurances that America will take care of us will no longer do for the president,â€ said the Afghan official who witnessed the presidentâ€™s outburst. To move forward, Karzai wants â€œcertaintiesâ€.

The developments around the Qatar peace opening seemed to be ripped directly from Karzaiâ€™s personal nightmare script: that his government would be marginalised in Washingtonâ€™s endgame in Afghanistan.

He has long voiced suspicions about American-orchestrated Taliban talks, and recently he has told those around him that the Qatar process could result in a separate peace deal between the United States, the Taliban and the groupâ€™s backers in Pakistan, and perhaps even his political opponents within Afghanistan as well.

The fact that the Taliban have pointedly refused to say they would talk with Karzaiâ€™s government even as they state their willingness to talk to the Americans has only reinforced his concerns.

He made that clear on Saturday, when after meeting with Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain he told reporters that the two had discussed â€œthe fact that foreigners should not use the Afghan peace process for their goals and objectivesâ€. He did not elaborate.

Karzaiâ€™s increasingly harsh response to American initiatives in recent years has struck some officials as verging on paranoia. But Afghans close to him say it is consistent with his view of the United States as an unreliable ally.

Afghans have not forgotten how the United States during the 1990s effectively outsourced its Afghanistan policy to Pakistan, which then helped bring the Taliban to power. That perceived abandonment remains a staple of conversation among many here. Karzai has often told those close to him of going to Washington for help in the 1990s and â€œhaving doors slammed in his face â€” nobody cared,â€ said another Afghan who has worked with him. â€œHeâ€™s seen this movie before,â€ the Afghan said.

Though the offensive Taliban symbols have since been taken down, a senior State Department official said on Wednesday that the Taliban were demanding that their Qatar office be identified as the political office of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and that the sign with the name be restored.

In any case, a member of the Afghan High Peace Council, Said Muhammad Amin Tariq, said that removal of the flag and sign were not enough. â€œKarzai wants more assurances.â€

In particular, he is said to be adamant about pushing the Obama administration to pin down the specific number of American troops it wants to keep in Afghanistan after the NATO combat mission ends next year, as a sign of commitment to his government.

Karzai and some in his inner circle also seem to believe that the United States needs Afghanistan just as badly, and that they can strong-arm the Obama administration, according to some Afghan officials.

American officials say that kind of thinking is misguided. Though many American commanders and diplomats are pressing for a quick decision on troop numbers, some White House officials say they are increasingly uncertain that a security deal can be secured. â€œPeople are asking whether thatâ€™s something we can live with,â€ said one administration official. â€œThe Afghans probably wouldnâ€™t like to hear the answer to that question.â€

Much of what Karzai wants beyond the troop commitment seems even more unlikely â€” particularly his demands pertaining to the Taliban talks. daily times monitor

On one hand, Karzai is partial to economic investment and trade, which is great for us. On the other, he is fiercely anti-Pakistan, which is irritating in the context of Gwadar and Pakistani security.

A managed transition to a less unipolar government would be ideal; Karzai and his India-supported retinue leaves, replaced by a consensus PM who is just as eager to trade with China, while accepting Afghanistan's subordinate position in the AfPak relationship.

On one hand, Karzai is partial to economic investment and trade, which is great for us. On the other, he is fiercely anti-Pakistan, which is irritating in the context of Gwadar and Pakistani security.

A managed transition to a less unipolar government would be ideal; Karzai and his India-supported retinue leaves, replaced by a consensus PM who is just as eager to trade with China, while accepting Afghanistan's subordinate position in the AfPak relationship.

Click to expand...

Pragmatism is in using your clout to fix Pakistan, not in letting them use your backing to inflict harm in neighborhood. Pakistan is monster today because of China. Americans failed to fix Pakistan and today they are paying for it, one can see Chinese doing the same.

Regardless of any government in Afghanistan even a pro Chinese, there will be no peace for Chinese to operate in violent Afghanistan ignited by Pakistan for their strategic depth and Durand line psychosis.

Likely amrikans will not answer his claims for military help against Taliban, since amrikans are compromised with the withdraw of their troops until 2014 and not to engage themselves in a new round of conflicts. Amrikans aim is to seek an agreement among Karzai and Talibans. They believe that inserting Talibans in Afghan government they will force both to work together and so avoiding a new civil war.

Karzai regime / ANA has proven incompetent in subduing Talib. even with the Alliesâ€˜ strong backing.

More likely a "soft-partitioned" Afghanistan will emerge, mirroring Libya or Iraq, with a coalition "Central Government" of figureheads sitting in Kabul, then all factions (read warlords, ethnic groups, religious sects etc.) are more or less proxies of foreign powers.

Because they can run across the border and regroup. Don't blame the ANA.

Click to expand...

Many of the Taliban attacks occur hundreds of miles inside Afghanistan - are you seriously arguing that the ANA/ISAF is incapable of intercepting the Taliban 'running away across the border into Pakistan'?

Many of the Taliban attacks occur hundreds of miles inside Afghanistan - are you seriously arguing that the ANA/ISAF is incapable of intercepting the Taliban 'running away across the border into Pakistan'?

Click to expand...

No, I was replying to the previous member who suggested that ANA/ISAF is incapable of going after the Taliban when in fact the jugular vein of the insurgency lies across the border.

That was happening where it's supposed to be the stronghold of ANA/ISAF.

"We can expect high profile attacks, we can expect insider threats and we can expect maybe some assassinations," said German Gen. Gunter Katz, spokesman for the U.S.-led International Security Assistance Force. "

India's refusal to step in, provide weapons has made Karzai really desperate. I feel sad for him. Regardless of all corruption allegations, his fierce anti Pak/Taliban regime is good for the world.

Click to expand...

do you think india will not provide afghanistan with anything?
we have a lot of interests wrt afghan as it can be a potential counterweight to pakistan,which could be a reason for u turn of american diplomacy regarding taliban.
usa dont want their old friend pak to join with china

On one hand, Karzai is partial to economic investment and trade, which is great for us. On the other, he is fiercely anti-Pakistan, which is irritating in the context of Gwadar and Pakistani security.

A managed transition to a less unipolar government would be ideal; Karzai and his India-supported retinue leaves, replaced by a consensus PM who is just as eager to trade with China, while accepting Afghanistan's subordinate position in the AfPak relationship.

Click to expand...

thats the problem with china.you want some one like karzai , a one good for your business on the other hand you want afghan to subdue to pakistans power as its again in your interests.
both pakistan and afghanistan are enemies from beginning and it wont change until pakistan stops its plots to destabilize afghanistan

Likely amrikans will not answer his claims for military help against Taliban, since amrikans are compromised with the withdraw of their troops until 2014 and not to engage themselves in a new round of conflicts. Amrikans aim is to seek an agreement among Karzai and Talibans. They believe that inserting Talibans in Afghan government they will force both to work together and so avoiding a new civil war.

Click to expand...

forcing them both to work is like mixing fire and water.both dont go well with each other one has to die

Many of the Taliban attacks occur hundreds of miles inside Afghanistan - are you seriously arguing that the ANA/ISAF is incapable of intercepting the Taliban 'running away across the border into Pakistan'?

Click to expand...

those were fidayeen type attacks rather than face to face.no one can predict such ones

forcing them both to work is like mixing fire and water.both dont go well with each other one has to die

Click to expand...

of course

i dont also believe in an agreement among ANA and Taliban to share the power. Why Taliban should be content with a piece of power when it can by war retake the full power?? afghan army, even all western aid, is not a great thing, and Taliban can easily be reequipped by ISI through the porous Durand Line.

but amrikaans think the democracy that they installed by bombs is a perfect political system and capable to solve all afghan political problems.